How Much Can I Trust Information on the Internet?

Information on the internet ranges from truth to fiction to intentional misinformation. It's important to develop a critical eye towards everything you read.

//

I’m a computer science student, and I’m confused about the extent to which I should rely on the internet for the information about computers. For example, if we take the term “IP address,” then a lot of information has been provided on (for example, Wikipedia), which is a lot more than what is written in the recognized books. My question is how much should I rely on the web for such technical aspects?

It was an important question then, but oh, my, it’s amazing to consider how much more relevant this question has become since then. Of course, it’s not just about technical information, but also about information relating to just about anything you can imagine.

You know – like the news.

I’ll look at the quality of information available on the internet and offer a few suggestions to help sort out what is good and what is questionable.

Consider the source

This question opens a very important can of worms, because we get so much of our information from internet sources.

But we run into difficulty at the start. It’s no longer “the internet” we should be wary of – it’s the specific sources to which we choose to pay attention. In this context, the internet is nothing more than an information delivery mechanism. Almost every source of information we might previously have found offline is now present online, along with thousands of others.

Therein lies the fundamental problem: the internet has made it so easy to publish information, it seems everyone is doing so, whether or not they’re a trustworthy source of information.

So the first and best recommendation I can make is simply this: take everything, absolutely everything, with a grain of salt1.

Don’t trust any single source on its own – at least not until you’ve developed your own sense for just how accurate, reputable, or authoritative it happens to be. Even after that, it’s smart to remain skeptical.

Use multiple sources

The most important first step is to confirm the information you find using multiple sources.

This is trickier than it sounds.

What it really means is not just finding the same information in two or more places, but confirming that those sources actually arrived at the information independently. That means tracing back citations and references, when present, or making sure the information presented is the result of actual individual work.

The problem is this: information from a single source is often republished, copied, reposted, re-worded, and otherwise re-presented in multiple websites and sources. Republishing a mistake in a hundred different places doesn’t make it correct. Finding that mistaken information in a hundred different places isn’t a sign that it’s correct.

All of your friends reposting a mistake on social media doesn’t make it correct.

You must confirm for yourself by tracing back to the source. If a hundred different places all trace back to a single source, then it’s really only a data point of one. If those hundred different places track back to a couple of separate original sources that independently confirmed or arrived at the same conclusion, that’s a fantastic data point – of two. Depending on the situation and the sources, it might be enough.

But it’s so much work!

Confirming the validity of information can be a lot of work.

Indeed, folks who spread misinformation count on that. They rely on the fact that you and I are overwhelmed, time constrained – even lazy – and are more likely to believe the same thing reported in multiple places than we are to do the legwork to find out if it’s all from a single source.2

But in an age of widespread misinformation, half truths and outright lies, what can we reasonably be expected to do?

Four steps to the truth

First: understand the problem. What I’ve outlined here is a good start. You now know what to look for, and though it might be a bit of work, you know what you need to do before accepting something as accurate.

Second: be skeptical. Always. Perhaps even more importantly: don’t believe something just because you happen to agree with it. This is really, really hard. Keeping an open mind on all issues, even to the point of accepting that you might be wrong, is critical to knowing what you can and cannot trust or believe.

Third: do the work. When faced with a piece of information you’re not certain of, if it’s at all important, do the legwork to confirm or invalidate it. Trace the sources back. Is it a single source repeated everywhere, or have different sources arrived at the same conclusion? (And if it’s not worth the time to confirm it, don’t spread it as fact. In fact, don’t spread it at all.) This is a skill, and one well worth developing.

Fourth: build a network of more-trusted sources. Note I’m not saying “trusted” in an absolute sense, I’m saying more trusted. A critical component of being skeptical is, as I said, being skeptical of sources with which you already have some level of trust. This will actually happen naturally as you vet information in the prior step. You’ll see the same sources come up as more trustworthy than others, and those can rise to the top of your list.

Specific example sites

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is both problematic and useful, for a variety of reasons.

There is no single author or reference point for any given Wikipedia entry, and the quality of entries varies dramatically.

It tends to be a relatively good resource, particularly in areas such as tech, where a lot of people jump in and correct errors fairly quickly. Unfortunately, in more obscure or controversial areas, it’s often not as accurate as we might want, and it’s difficult to tell just how accurate it is.

Wikipedia entries include references, and these can be a gold mine for further research of your own, as well as providing evidence that the entry itself may be legitimate, and that the authors put in some effort to make it so.

One thing to watch for specifically is Wikipedia content published on other sites. Wikipedia has been known to be the single “source” behind numerous republications of its information.

Snopes and other fact-checking sites

Snopes.com is my go-to site for rumor and misinformation debunking or confirmation in popular and current culture. The problem is that every time I mention Snopes, detractors chime in that it supposedly has a left-wing political bias. (Which is itself a rumor debunked by others. It typically reflects someone’s disagreement with Snopes’ evaluation of some issue.)

No matter. There are plenty of sites that can be used for this purpose. Whether it be Snopes or another, you can and should use use multiple independent sources to confirm or deny any given issue. Give preference to those that cite their sources (like Snopes) and check out those citations. Over time, you’ll determine which of the sites are most reliable, and reduce the amount of legwork you may need to do in the future.

The truth is out there

While the truth is almost certainly “out there”, it’s in the firehose of information that the internet delivers to our computer screens every moment. It’s critical to never accept anything without question, but develop a skeptical eye and our own objective confirmation techniques and resources to sort fact from fiction.

Read more:

How the Internet Is Breaking Journalism (and what it means to you) – When it comes to journalism and other information that you read on the internet, there’s a very strong argument that things are seriously broken. The result is that we all need to be more vigilant than ever to separate truth from falsehood and recognize what’s important as opposed to what’s popular.

It Pays to be Skeptical – If we could all be just a little more skeptical, we’d be safer, and the internet could be a more trustworthy place.

About Leo

Leo A. Notenboom has been playing with computers since he was required to take a programming class in 1976. An 18 year career as a programmer at Microsoft soon followed. After "retiring" in 2001, Leo started Ask Leo! in 2003 as a place for answers to common computer and technical questions. More about Leo.

Comments

Actually, I’ve been following you for a while, and you are quite correct — don’t rely on *any* single source for your information. And don’t forget that even the most reliable sources sometimes get things wrong.

This reminds me of some social experiment I heard about some time ago. A bunch of college students set up websites about a tree-dwelling octopus (or some other such nonsense), then asked a group of children to find out about them. After they had discovered the information, a lot of the kids refused to believe the whole thing was made up, simply because they had found it on the internet.

Don’t believe everything you read! Or hear!

At best, it is someone’s opinion that may or may not be verifiable. At worst, it is complete hogwash. Sites like Uncyclopaedia come to mind – funny, but ultimately wrong lol.

Hi Leo, I have a question pertaining to “screen shots” in textbooks. Who determines the size of
the screenshot entered in a book? Is it the author
or the editor? I have two John Wiley @ sons books. The font inside the screenshot is about #4
(must use a magnifying glass) the other uses colored ink. Black on white has been the standard
for many years. If I can get the book on my CPU
I can change the screen & font size. Printers should take age into consideration when publishing books. Thanks Leo

I agree with KRS! I’m a doctor and sometimes have to spend a lot of time undoing misinformation people have picked up on the internet. Of course there are differences of opinion on many issues, especially where the research is sparse or lacking. But many of the blogs or personal sites base things on theory, not on what has been tested. Along with sites like the Mayo Clinic, professional association websites, e.g., American Academy of Family Physicians, present balanced information.

I’ve long thought that the medical profession (among others I’m sure) must view the internet with decidedly mixed feelings. It’s a smorgasbord for people to self diagnose – for better or worse.

You said: “Wikipedia is very problematic; simply because there is no single author.”. How is this a problem? What’s your logic? You obviously haven’t taken the time to read up what the concept of Wikipedia is. If you have an OPINION, state that. Otherwise provide references to your FACTS.

Then you go on to say: “but in many areas, it’s not quite as accurate as we might want”.
You can’t just say that without PROOF, otherwise it is just YOUR opinion!

I would like to see (in Wikipedia) a link to exactly who wrote what. In that way, one could contact the writer directly if you differed with their facts or opinions.

As far as Snopes goes, I trust it about as far as I can throw the writers for the site, and as for Wikipedia, it has this nasty problem of being an open knowledge database that can be edited by anyone and worded in anyway they want it to be. Wikipedia should never be trusted, and only be used as a jumping off point for certain things.

Free Newsletter!

Subscribe to The Ask Leo! Newsletter and get a copy of The Ask Leo! Guide to Staying Safe on the Internet – FREE Edition. This ebook will help you identify the most important steps you can take to keep your computer, and yourself, safe as you navigate today’s digital landscape.

Then each week in The Ask Leo! Newsletter you’ll get even more tips, tricks, answers and ideas to help you use your technology more effectively and stay safe doing so.